Simpy Chetty @ Naik vs State Of Odisha

D.Dash, J

1.This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. This is the second journey of the Petitioner, who is in custody in C.T. Case No. 10 of 2020 arising out of G.R. Case No. 120 of 2018

corresponding to Kasipur P.S. Case No.0037 of 2018 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Rayagada running for alleged commission of

offence under sections 302/201 IPC, in filing this application under section 439 Cr.P.C. for her release on bail.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the case of the prosecution here is based on circumstantial evidence and merely because the

allegation runs against the Petitioner who happens to be the mother of the deceased to have intentially caused the death of her male child of around

one year of age, the court below has been swayed away in rejecting the prayer for bail of the Petitioner even for the second time. He further submits

that on perusal of the statements of the witnesses Chinimani Naik and Subash recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. would not go to show that the same

stands directly against the Petitioner in implicating her with the alleged crime. He further submits that the circumstances which are projected by the

prosecution are also not such as to prima facie complete the chain excluding all hypothesis other than the guilt of the Petitioner. It is submitted that the

Petitioner being a Tribal Lady has remained in custody since 16.9.2019 and as per instruction till now only the charge has been framed. It is submitted

that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no scope for the Petitioner to tamper the evidence and the question of her fleeing from justice

also does not arise. He therefore urges for grant of bail to the Petitioner as according to him, further detention of the Petitioner in custody conclusion

of the trial would serve no useful purpose.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the move. According to him, the conduct of the Petitioner being taken with the circumstances go to

complete the chain in such a manner that there remains no missing link, also when the absence of any acceptable explanation of the Petitioner as to

the whereabout of her child (deceased) from the side of the Petitioner stands as an additional circumstance.

5. Keeping in view the submission made, I have gone through the orders passed by the learned courts below on 30.9.2019 and 13.7.2020. The

materials as placed reveal the case as based on circumstantial evidence which have been collected in course of investigation which is complete and

the Petitioner being a Tribal Lady hailing from Scheduled district of Rayagada is in custody from 16.9.2019.

6. Considering the submissions made and on going through the materials as placed; further keeping in view the surrounding circumstances including

the period of detention of the Petitioner in custody, while being inclined to reconsider the prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioner; it is directed that the

Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the court in seisin of the case with

further conditions that she will not terrorize or threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner; will not indulge in any criminal activity; and will

appear in person before the court in seisin of the case on each and every date of posting of the case till conclusion of the trial.

Violation of any terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

7. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed.

8. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order

available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide

Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.

.….……………………….